SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
California lawmakers on Thursday advanced the last major surviving bill in a package aimed at reducing consumption of sodas, approving a measure that would require health warning labels on sugary drinks.
The measure by Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) received a bare majority of votes even though some Democrats withheld votes while others in the majority party joined Republicans in opposition.
The latest action follows this year’s shelving of measures that would have put a tax on soda and banned “Big Gulp”-style sodas in an effort to address health risks including obesity and diabetes that are posed by sugary drinks.
“They represent the single leading source of increased bad calories that are being promoted in our communities and pushed on communities of color,” Monning said during the floor debate, citing a “national epidemic” of diabetes.
The label on container would say: “STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) may contribute to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay.”
[...] The American Beverage Assn. opposed the bill with a strong push by lobbyists and while making major political contributions to state lawmakers.
The industry argued that the bill and its health impact claims went too far.
“There are already more effective ways to help people manage their overall sugar consumption rather than through mandatory and misleading messages,” said Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the American Beverage Assn.
[...] Legislators are also still considering a bill that would bar the soda industry from offering subsidies including discount coupons that encourage soda consumption.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:54PM (12 children)
Devils advocate. Isn't that sugar? So shouldn't this warning go on anything that has sugar in it? Isn't that the misleading point, that it makes it seem like ONLY pop/soda/coke with added sugar is the problem?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:14PM (8 children)
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:20PM (3 children)
That's only because it's the only food item that's measured in liters.
(Score: 3, Informative) by istartedi on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:07PM (2 children)
Semantics. He could have said "tons" and it would have had the same meaning. It was a figure of speech, meant to emphasize that those products are over-consumed. The units of measure are not what's relevant here.
Even on the Internet, where nuance and sarcasm in particular are hard to convey, you should have comprehended that.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:01PM (1 child)
See, I took it as a joke. I doubt it was intended to be otherwise. Why get angry?
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:55PM
I'm not particularly angry, but I don't think it was meant as a set-up line and it wasn't a particularly funny joke... if it was intended as such. Does anything mean anything any more? I guess it depends on what your definition of definition is, as if any of this matters much anyway.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:53PM (3 children)
Soda is designed to be as addictive as possible and sugar is part of this.
a 12 OZ drink with 20 and 30 grams of sugar? I've never met a soda addict who could explain what 20 grams of sugar means.
I've watched this crap make family old before their days and heard every excuse in the world why their health problems were not the result of 2lt of coke a day. That shit was 60-99 cents.
It was also a real fucking joy dealing with the associated junky-like mood swings from this shit. Like dealing with a smoker who can't smoke except at least most addicts recognize when they're grouchy and feigning. Soda addicts have done nothing wrong... they're good people so if they're being an asshole it's someone else's fault
(Score: 3, Informative) by exaeta on Wednesday May 29 2019, @09:29PM (1 child)
Contrary to some medically unsound but popular beliefs, sugar is not a drug.
While consumption of excessive amounts of sugar can definitely lead to health issues, a single can of soda does not actually have all that much calories. It's the very large soda drinks that get people. Would you get fat if you consumed 64 Fl Oz of potatoes every meal? Probably. In that regard, it's the caloric quantity, rather than the "added sugar" that makes it dangerous.
There are also no studies comparing equivalent consumption of not-added sugars, e.g. apple juice, that I'm aware of. I'm going to assume the effect will be the same, the carbonic acid shouldn't be making you fat.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:31PM
I'd have to see the Simpsons episode before passing final judgement on this one.
Aren't most hash-brown/french-fry type products basically pureed potatoes reformed into sticks? I've been wondering about that recently.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Wednesday May 29 2019, @11:02PM
It's not so much the juice, as it is the way it's delivered. OK, there's HFCS vs. real sugar. Coke used to be real sugar in 6.5 oz. bottles. Themz was the good ol' days.
When I was still drinking the stuff, 12 oz. cans were standard. Already too much, but tolerable and I'd drink the whole thing and crush a trail in the Appalachians so it was not a problem.
Then they started having nothing but 20 oz. bottles, and at the end of a hike I'd be like... dang, I don't want to waste this but it's too much. Somehow the bulb went on for me.
I pretty much stopped drinking the stuff around that time. Somehow, I was lucky enough to be the kind of person that knew something wasn't right about it all.
I'm with you. Not everybody has the make-up to face off against a marketing machine that favors gluttons and say "no". I don't want prohibition. It's already legal, but like that other vice that's recently begun to trend legal, "legalize and tax", because it's obviously a vice.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:08PM (2 children)
Solution: stop bundling the sugar into the soda.
Sell the sugar separately and allow the end user to add as much as they could possibly ever want, to customize it to their individual taste.
Now the soda no longer needs a warning label.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 4, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:12PM
You guys could also stop subsidising the sugar industry to the tune of $4 billion per year. [marketwatch.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:15PM
I know this is sarcasm, but I actually think it's got a good point. People are used to soda being ridiculously sweet, so they expect it. I personally almost never drink soda, because it tastes so awful and incredibly sweet that I find it revolting.
There are sodas (mostly premium ones) that contain a lot less sugar, and I don't mind them as much. But all mainstream soda in the U.S. is ridiculously sweet. I think consumers don't have a choice and they're used to it.
Compare to the practice of iced "sweet tea" in the Southeastern U.S. People there are used to it, but I find it disgustingly sweet. In the North, many people just drink unsweetened iced tea and aren't bothered by the lack of sugar. (Some do in the South too... Hence I learned how to order a 'half and half" tea to get something that's not quite as disgustingly sweet, though still way too sweet for me to drink regularly.)
People are used to sweetness patterns, but would they really choose to make drinks as sweet if they weren't raised on such things? But breaking the cemented public taste is hard. I once tried a few years back at a gas station to find a less sweet iced tea drink when I stopped on the road, so I looked at labels and looked for lower amounts of sugar and calories... And found one, advertised with less sugar. Until I tasted it, and almost spit it out because it was so sweet -- turns out they replaced over half the sugar with sucralose, which I saw when I read the label more carefully.
I for one would welcome the ability to choose to sweeten my drinks much less than what most companies sell.